Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In Stalin's defense, I can point out an objective need of the country to build world-class industry in the record amount of time under heavy Western sanctions (total isolation).
And highly ineffective ways of Russian farming practices (constant "hungers" every other year and very low outcome of grain production per acre even in good years). The most effective grain production happened to be in the bigger agrarian complexes of the local landlords (who were declassified as result of the Revolution).
And let's not forget Lenin's teachings that farmers are apolitical, which is totally true.
So, I doubt Stalin had any personal hate to the farmers. He was a wise Dark Lord, who managed to save Russian empire.
He was a freaking moron who though Lysenko, since he was a communist who towed the party line, obviously had better “ways of knowing.”
There’s even an aphorism known as Lysenkoism. It means a moronic political apparatchik who towed the party line and killed 20 million or so people from gross incompetence. The dude was so inept at his job that he thought placing plants as close to each other as possible would bring about some sort of revolution. Apparently spacing and photosynthesis was in the “bag of tricks” for the morally superior communist.
No worries. When the census takers reported that nearly 30 million people “disappeared,” Stalin had the census takers shot or imprisoned.
- That's you putting words in my mouth sorry to say.
Au contraire, I was always saying that Stalin was targeting the peasantry first and utmost ( he hated them as class, apparently.)
Ukraine was agrarian lands, so obviously they suffered the most. ( Not "Russia proper," although that one suffered too.)
Now when I was a schoolgirl - I don't believe we we were even taught such things - at least I don't remember it.
Of course all my sources are mostly English Wiki ( and some are facts learned from my grand-parents.
TWO - For example what "Torgsin" was ( showed in one of the pics you presented) - "Trade with foreigners."
It was the place where the population could turn in their valuables - gold and silver first of all in exchange for money. That's how I know that that particular picture was taken IN THE CITY OF KHARKOV, not in the region.
So yes, the picture of Torgsin was taken IN KHARKOV, as in the CITY.
The rest of the pictures are coming from the country side around Kharkov by the look of it.
That's not one and the same thing.
THREE - Ukraine had the statehood for the last 30 years.
What took place in 2014 was not about the "statehood" at all.
It was all about Ukrainian NATIONALISM, coming originally from the Western part of Ukraine, which brought a lot of death and destruction to the Eastern part of it.
I would advise you to revisit this article from the "Open Democracy," which shows rather well, how Ukraine was turned into Ukrainians of the "first class" ( i.e. Western Ukrainians) and the "rest" ( and this included the Eastern Ukrainians.)
And, to conclude the picture, I will remind you again what was going in Ukrainian parliament between the Nationalists ( representing mostly the Western part of Ukraine) and the representatives of the South Eastern part of the country.
So no, it was not about the "Ukrainian statehood" at all, as you erroneously think.
It was about the Ukrainian Nationalism, first and utmost and desire to destroy the historic composition of Ukraine.
This "historically Ukrainian territory" couldn't stand on its own - that's why they asked Moscow to accept them under its protection back in the 1600ies.
TWO - I already explained the difference between Kharkov ( as the CITY, the new capital of Ukraine from 2019 to 1934) and the country side , i.e. "oblast," the REGION.
From the WIKI;
"In the early 1930s, the Holodomor famine drove many people off the land into the cities, and to Kharkiv in particular, in search of food."
FOUR - There was NO USSR before 1917.
FIVE - There was TZARIST EMPIRE, that built all those major cities of the South East of today's Ukraine, and you can include Kharkov there, since the original fort was situated on the part of the territory where the Cossack Hetmanat resided, that asked to be adjoined to Russia back in 1600ies.
SIX - ( And no, not the Don cossack host, but Zaporozhie Sich. It's not one and the same thing as you assumed.)
FIVE - All the major cities in the South-Eastern part of today's Ukraine were built BY THE RUSSIANS, by their military to be more precise.
I already made a post on it earlier, which you apparently missed.
But you can look it up here again, in the Wiki.
( All my info comes from it, not some "Russian text-books" b.t.w.)
This should explain to you why Russian language was predominant in Ukrainian CITIES, long before any "Stalin" showed up on horizon.
Kharkov was no exception, except for it was the Soviet government that replaced a lot of Russian population with Ukrainian in the city if anything, because of the "Ukrainization" policies that it was initially pursuing.
"At the beginning of the 20th century, the city was predominantly Russian in population, but after the Soviet government's policy of Ukrainization the city became populated mainly by Ukrainians with a significant number of Russians.[8][9]
THREE - So I will reiterate it again - the 2014 so-called "Revolution" was NOT about the "statehood" of Ukraine, ( Ukraine was already a separate from Russia state for the last 30 years, with Russia HAVING NO interest in taking over its territories.)
The 2014 was all about the Ukrainian Nationalism first and utmost, rising from the Western part of Ukraine and desire to destroy the historic composition of Ukraine.
Due to overlapping points, I've grouped the responses keyed to my CAPITALIZED NUMBERS INSERTED IN YOUR TEXT..
ONE - Apologies if I'm misremembering your point ... What you repeated now seems more accurate.
TWO - Don't understand your differentiating Kharkiv city and its surrounding countryside. The point was the famine was in the EAST. With Kharkiv, the worst-impacted area, clearly located there. Starving peasants in the area around Kharkiv came to the city hoping for food. I'm missing the point.
THREE - How did 2014 get into this? The Holomodor helped drive the movement towards Ukrainian statehood, which, of course, did not happen until much later.
FOUR - Yes, of course I know that. Started with USSR, corrected the timeline, then never edited it out.
FIVE - Never said that all Russian migration into the region came in the 1930s. Peoples always move over time. In fact, I'd noticed the earlier post on Russian imperialist settlement. Even so, the demographics of Eastern Ukraine changed substantially in the 1930s due to a single notable event. An event so emotionally important it impacted later political history.
This was in response to another poster: How was it Ukraine's right to make it a part of Ukraine?. Due to all the thread emphasis on Russian-speakers in the east, the poster may not have fully realized the territory WAS Ukrainian albeit with a higher number of ethnic Russians than to the west.
SIX - Aware of the Zaporozhian_Sich but I'm still referencing something ELSE, some sort of dispute over the tip of the Donbass that involved Cossacks. Another border change? The Cossacks ranged over parts of Ukraine but that tip of Donbass was never Ukrainian? I don't think either of us knows precisely.
Much of what you're writing about has little to do with my original response to another poster where I commented: Eastern Ukraine is Ukraine, the "bread basket" where so many Ukrainians died during the Holomodor.. (To be most precise, I should have said central to eastern Ukraine and not the very southeastern tip.)
You corrected me saying "So no, that's not where the majority of hunger deaths took place. Ukraine further west - that's where the agrarian lands truly were/are. "
I dissented, with much of this last response venturing into other areas already much discussed in other posts. I did not disagree earlier and do not now there were also other forces moving Russians into Ukraine. But then conversely, forces moving alive Ukrainians out of Ukraine, for example the kulak banishment.
Resulting in the demographics we have today in Ukraine that now are problematic.
Resulting in the demographics we have today in Ukraine that now are problematic.
It's not only the "demographics" but the whole outlook on life, the language, the traditions, the history that separates them.
Starting with the major divider that Western Ukrainians supported Hitler, while Eastern Ukrainians were fighting him tooth and nail.
This division never went away, which created a lot of tensions ( and downright violence coming from the Western part of Ukraine) nowadays, therefore it's about time for Eastern and Western Ukraine to part their ways IMHO.
It's not only the "demographics" but the whole outlook on life, the language, the traditions, the history that separates them.
Starting with the major divider that Western Ukrainians supported Hitler, while Eastern Ukrainians were fighting him tooth and nail.
This division never went away, which created a lot of tensions ( and downright violence coming from the Western part of Ukraine) nowadays, therefore it's about time for Eastern and Western Ukraine to part their ways IMHO.
What this war will show is how important those factors are compared to ethnicity. Impossible to know exactly what the FSB conveyed to Putin and how Putin weighed various factors. Still analysts imply that Putin was told or perhaps himself expected more of a welcome. Not just an army that could not or would not fight.
I suspect "ethnic" identity itself will not be clear. Not due only to intermarriage over long periods of time. Some nationalities hold on to ethnicities for centuries, for example Germans living in culturally distinct settlements. Romania, for one. Due to the general similarities in culture some early-arriving Russians may identify more as Ukrainians with later ones who lived under the USSR thinking very differently?
In the Western part of Ukraine it's a whole different story.
Couple of days ago the mayor of Ivano-Frankovsk made a speech that he was "disturbed by the amount of the new arrivals, that speak Russian language instead of Ukrainian." ( We are talking about the refugees here.) He suggested to not to serve them in public places, if they can't switch to Ukrainian.
This is just a latest example of what's going on, ( and what was going on all these years.)
Hmmm...
Who this *someone* would be?
No he did not.
He WAS that "Russian commando" himself, that's it.
The 90% of his troops were the local people from Donbass ( he admits it in his interview,) and 10% the volunteers from Russia, all while the Ukrainian nationalists imply that they were "all Russians."
( I found this original interview of his now in Russian, it's from 2014, and rather detailed and lengthy.)
Interestingly enough, Strelkov IS the Russian nationalist of Imperial variety ( and that means his "ideal" goes all the way back to the Russian Empire and what "Russian officer" meant back then.
But it has little to do with "Putin" and the "USSR."
That's why Strelkov was not embraced by many Russians, far away from it.
They considered him snobbish, "elitist," and what not.
Per the first bold, not one someone but a collective set from both 'sides.' What has struck me repeatedly is we see tension, groups circling one another, then a single action or misjudgment from an individual results in this escalating violence. Had that someone not acted then tensions may have dissipated or at least not then exploded. Strelkov is an example of that kind of 'actor.' Putin now another.
Per the second bold, Strelkov said "we" in an article so I went with commandos in the plural. Brrabbit puts the number at 54. It was clear he primarily worked with locals.
Per the third bold, Putin does appear to immerse himself in imperialistic Russian history. Recent article on the nuclear submarine naming, with one the Alexander III. And now an obscure Russian monk. (Some sort of public selection from prepared options, at least at times.). Clearly he is well-studied. What this means to him politically impossible to say.
Last edited by EveryLady; 03-28-2022 at 10:36 PM..
So anyway, according to the Financial Times, Russia is no longer requesting Ukraine be “de-Nazified” and is prepared to let Kyiv join the EU if it remains militarily non-aligned as part of ceasefire negotiations.
"FT said the draft ceasefire deal does not contain any discussion of three of Russia’s initial core demands – “de-Nazification”, “demilitarisation” and legal protection for the Russian language in Ukraine."
From what I read, Russia continues to hold the region north of Kyiv, while Ukrainian forces have retaken Irpin, a Kyiv suburb.
Fighting continues.
Reportedly, Irpin was never fully controlled by Russians. They control part of it, Ukrainians control another part. The fighting is going on, but probably less intense as a couple weeks ago. Due to shifting focus on Chernigov and Kharkov.
So anyway, according to the Financial Times, Russia is no longer requesting Ukraine be “de-Nazified” and is prepared to let Kyiv join the EU if it remains militarily non-aligned as part of ceasefire negotiations.
"FT said the draft ceasefire deal does not contain any discussion of three of Russia’s initial core demands – “de-Nazification”, “demilitarisation” and legal protection for the Russian language in Ukraine."
Russian and Ukrainian negotiators are scheduled to meet at Istanbul’s Dolmabahce Palace about an hour from now, 07:30 GMT.
Ukraine should not agree to anything but full withdrawal of Russian forces and return of previous taken land.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
